ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049057
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Eric Doyle | 21 Active Drain Solutions |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Andrea Montanelli, Peninsula Business Services |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00060321-001 | 30/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and two witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. Both parties were provided with the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that was not provided with a copy of his terms and conditions in writing. He stated in evidence that he never given a contract of employment and could not recall receiving an email from the office manager enclosing a statement of his terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that it provided the complainant with a copy of his terms and conditions of employment when he started work and followed this up by sending a copy to him by email. The respondent witness, the managing director, stated that provided the complainant with a copy of his terms of employment when he started work and stated that he was also sent a copy of an email where the terms were attached. He submitted a copy of the email together with a copy of an attached document outlining the complainant’s terms and conditions of employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant’s case is that he was not provided with a contract of employment nor a copy of his terms and conditions in writing. The respondent produced a copy of an email sent to him short after he started which enclosed a copy of his terms and conditions of employment. The complainant could not recall receiving this document but confirmed that the email that they were sent to was his work-related email account. On the basis of the written and oral evidence provided at the hearing of this matter, I am satisfied that the respondent did provide the complainant with a copy of the terms and conditions of his employment as provided for in the Act, shortly after his employment started. Therefore, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided by the parties in relation to this matter, my decision is that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 05-04-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Terms of employment – provided in writing to complainant - complaint not well founded. |